Is he right Sup Forums?

Is he right Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dXpffMXUcAg
youtube.com/watch?v=BkQpqZBp7SQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morrissey
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Degas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukio_Mishima
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No, and you know he isn't so make a better thread next time.

not really, no. His statement doesn't really correlate.

Absolutely. Rarely have conservatives been able to produce quality art. They compensate for this by saying "muh hard work!!!" "muh actually contribooting something to the world!!!"
Nor can the artist that insists his work is apolitical produce anything worthwhile.

but liberalism is what stagnates and causes depravity

her post makes no sense in the context of objectivism

objectivism cannot work in art because you cannot objectively prove whether art is good or not in scientific manner.

he probs listen to jazz music like most libfags

but Sup Forums taught me if i don't like it it's objectively shit

>Conservatives is at odds with the aim of making art.
Citation needed

Yes, but everyone else will say no because this site has turned into Trumplr

>trumplr
fucking kek I'm using that

I would say no because "conservatism" is a modern concept and just one of many ideologies that can impose itself over people and control people, and could even be oppressed and therefore produce good art.

saying this as someone more liberal than conservative by a lot too

Comment one is fair enough, comment two is pretty shitty.

>no nothing
>all art is inherently political

but yes i do agree with him.

most artists historically probably owned slaves and beat them regularly. does that count as conservative?

Sorta
The left politicizes art and the right aestheticizes politics, this is how it always works

Rostams 'art' is not political though, so...
Also his definition of the aims of making art is outdated by about 50 years

Most artists before 1800 or so would be considered socially conservative today so I don't really think that argument works. You can say it's the case today, perhaps, but it hasn't always been like that. Many artists were obsessed with mastering traditions and pre-established forms, with their ultimate goal being to build on those old styles, adding just a little bit to the otherwise rigid structure.

Pablo Picasso said it better: "Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist."

An artist must have a strong understanding of previously established systems of expression if he/she wants to add to them in some way.

i see where you're coming from but oppression does not lead directly to great art. still agree though

vise versa

>all art is inherently political
What a fucking retard.

Almost everybody in the 1800's would be considered socially conservative today...

>muh colonialized indie pop

Art is inherently emotional. It can be political, but that's not what it's based in.

I wouldn't say all art, but if you actually study art history, the large majority of art pre mid 1400s (I would actually argue all from the neolithic period to around 1450-60, something like that) is either religious or political, many both. The idea of secular and a-political art is relatively new.

Well yeah, my point was just that it's not as if artists have always been dying their hair blue and espousing the virtues of feminism. The idea of the artist as rebel is not at all representative of the history of art.

conservatism doesn't really exist

A progressive man in the 1800s is not progressive in 2016. Who woulda thought? There's a difference between being intellectually progressive wanting progress and pushing boundaries (which artists have done for centuries), and being progressive in 2016, it really doesn't make sense to compare artists of a completely different time when modern progressive views simply did not exist. Certainly over the last 100 or so years, I can't think of many great boundary pushing artists who were conservative and even before that, great artists have often been fascinated with sciences and have been ahead of the curve when it comes to social change.

>the large majority of art pre mid 1400s (I would actually argue all from the neolithic period to around 1450-60, something like that) is either religious or political, many both. The idea of secular and a-political art is relatively new.

To be fair, do you think that the reason for that is that many of the renowned artists were either:

-supported by the church (certainly a political institution in those days)
or
-supported by nobility/royalty

Not necessarily disagreeing with your post but just looking to add context.

Sup Forums is full of idiots

I mean this trend goes back as far as 10k bce my dude, this isn't a question of being well known.

>when ppl say there isn't any good conservative art

youtube.com/watch?v=dXpffMXUcAg

oh yeah Cannibal Corpse grunting about necrophilia is certainly political

Part of the issue with this discussion is that it depends on what you mean by "conservative"

It's possible that a person could live their private life in an extremely conservative way (they regularly attend church, they believe in traditional gender structure, they believe in the traditional husband/wife relationship, they see raising a family as a natural duty, etc), but when it comes to their "politics" (what they think their government ought to do) they could still be relatively left-wing. This problem makes it difficult to label someone as simply "conservative" or "progressive" (and thus, difficult to categorize for the purposes of this debate)

this entire site is, most likely including yourself

the idea of conservative art as a minority viewpoint is pretty damn new desu.
youtube.com/watch?v=BkQpqZBp7SQ
metal in general has probably the best collection of conservative art anywhere, with neofolk and industrial coming in second.

That's pretty interesting. I guess in modern times motivations for making art changed a lot. People realize you can make art for the purpose of making art, and that alone has made some fantastic art.

>progress

They've actually caused discussions about indecency in album art and lyrics on a few political platforms, you could've chosen a better example

How is it not rebelling against political correctness

ok then how is American Football political?

>I guess in modern times motivations for making art changed a lot

It's more that people are able to make high quality art while working some other unrelated job to support themselves financially. Also the fact that modern technology has made many art-forms significantly more accessible to the average person (compare the ridiculous cost of film-making, even at an "indie" level in the 1930s to the cost of a single digital camera+computer for editing today).

(btw: you can make an argument for anything, art of otherwise, as being politically charged somehow, which is why this discussion is flawed)

>vice versa
No. While I don't really agree, I get where why he feels the way he does in post one.

Post two is just stupid, "conservative" in general is a bit vague and I don't buy that beliefs in value of the past blind people to news ways of self-expression.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morrissey
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Degas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukio_Mishima

Now, weather or not you or anyone else personally likes every one of these artists isn't the point. The point is that they were all significant voices in their respect fields during their tenure and were/are all held to high esteem.

stop dodging the question faggot

That's decently stated. Still a conservative tho

im on your side, i think

the idea that all art is political is ridiculous, because by necessity it must follow that all human experience is political

is the aim of art actually to "forge something new" as the OP image states?

what does "forging something new" entail, exactly?

is an artist forging something new if they learn an established tradition and make slight changes to it?

their whiny music promotes the numale lifestyle

good point

I'll take what is Ted Nugent for 200

kinda agree desu

I will say it's weird that almost no conservative artist exist. I mean Kid Rock and Ted Nugent don't count.

This

(see pic)

Fuck no. The only meaning art has is the meaning you give it. Sure, you can make political art but you gain also make it for entertainment, or just for art's sake like the Aesthethicists. Also as for art being anti-conservative, look up NSBM, futurism, and Oi!.

lol

i uhgree wit dis

the fact that you define "conservatives" as people like Nugent and Kid Rock shows why this argument is ridiculous in the first place

what if an artist:
-supports the traditional family structure (without voicing this opinion publicly, they just live their lives that way- wife, kids, etc)
-believes that people and governments should be careful with their money
-believes that consumption of drugs is overall a negative force

but they also believe that:
-gays/trans are at least worthy of sympathy/understanding
-governments should set up some sort of social safety net
-drug users should not be imprisoned

Are they a conservative? Or a progressive? It's difficult to say, which is why its silly to frame all people (or artists in this case) as being on one end of the political spectrum.

This is the correct answer

I don't entirely agree but people who go "Omg you're not qualified to have an opinion on politics shut up!" are fucking idiots who generally just don't want to hear opposing views

Yes, even artists like ATDI who make music with nonsensical lyrics (at the least) were motivated and (in general) have a preferred clientèle (whatever that demographic may be for that artist) whether they could ever admit it or not.

what's conservatism?
it's a localised American identity, nothing more

While this may be certainly true with some people, as someone who's about to obtain a degree in political science in May, I can say with confidence that the vast majority of musicians don't really know what the fuck they're talking about. It would be simply nicer if they didn't make things shitty by getting all political about things and bring things up that gets anyone riled up as musicians tend to be dramatic and hyperbolic about things.

hey me too

what school did you go to?

I'm at George Mason University

Some place called St. Edward's University. Most people just assume I go to UT when I tell them I'm in Austin lel

You're definitely going to have more insight than people outside of your field but I still think by nature of being a citizen and having politics impact you you should have the right to speak your mind without being silenced due to not being an expert, unless you're being willfully ignorant and closed minded about what you're talking about

I see where he's coming from but that invalidates pretty much all traditional music and classical music and art made before 1900.

>you should have the right to speak your mind without being silenced

there's a difference between being silenced and being challenged

i think the person you're responding to is talking about challenging these people, not silencing them outright.

lol check and mate

>all human experience is political
Are you saying that it is not?

Not necessarily

But if it is indeed all political, and we believe the suggestion that all art is political, then even conservatives ought to be able to imbue their art with their own human experience.

>But if it is indeed all political, and we believe the suggestion that all art is political, then even conservatives ought to be able to imbue their art with their own human experience.
Sure

I wish Gavin whoever wasn't born so I wouldn't have the opportunity to watch that

>I'll take what is Ted Nugent for 200
I'll take what is cherrypicking for 400

I don't disagree with you but... Futurism?
What.
Do you mean like Italian futurists? Because they were largely obsessed with crashing headlong into modernity and thought classical forms of art were dull.
I mean shit Marinetti himself hated old art just because it was old.

>they just live their lives that way- wife, kids, etc
so you mean almost every person on earth?

This thread belongs on Sup Forums :)

they didn't have a choice you fucking retard. you have to go where the money is

you don't know anything about history but you're trying to drop knowledge. it's pretty sad

>you have to go where the money is

Yeah man, the dues who built the religious structures at Gobekli Tepe in 8000 bce just wanted money, haha :)

you wouldn't believe how many 'progressives' are anti-family

>liberalism, an ideaology that revolves around moving forward, is what stagnates
Wrong
ending slavery was very liberal for its time period
allowing women and black people to vote
Liberal =/= democrat

>Nor can the artist that insists his work is apolitical produce anything worthwhile

wrong, completely utterly wrong. Most political or ''important'' artists are hacks anyway and their works are quickly forgotten.

Conservatives are motivated by stability.
Progressives are motivated by change.
Society needs both, but the latter tends to produce better artists.
That said, music itself must balance conservative elements with progressive ones to succeed.
If it's too conventional, it gets short term popularity at best.
If it's too experimental, it gets short term admiration at best.

The Beatles wrote conservatively, The velvet underground wrote progressively
Not that user but I think this is a good example

He might be correct, but listening to music doesn't have to be a political act, meaning you don't have to agree or care or even identify the political subtext of a work to appreciate it

neither the beatles were too conservative or tvu was too experimental. they both fall in that grey are, with tvu slightly more to the left (progress)

no one is anti-family
some people dont want to start their families but they arent trying to stop others from doing it

NO

This. I listen to inherently conservative genres, I'd say. Black metal (especially NSBM) and PE are pretty rooted in (if not conservative political ideology itself) a conservative approach to music making that focuses more on refinement of the existing style rather than progression or trying new things

HAHAHAHAHA
Not exactly. The human experience is warfare and politics are an extension of warfare, not a synonym. You can exercise your will to power apolitically

>no one is anti-family
This is a factually wrong statement

Only good post in this dumbass thread.

futurism is fascist

This thread...

That's exactly fucking why they did it. It was their fucking job